Greer McCollum, Ashleigh Allgood, April Agne, Dave Cleveland, Cicily Gray, Eric Ford, Stefan Baral, Michael Mugavero, Allyson G Hall
{"title":"阿拉巴马州 4 个农村县的社会网络与 COVID-19 疫苗接种率之间的关系:调查结果。","authors":"Greer McCollum, Ashleigh Allgood, April Agne, Dave Cleveland, Cicily Gray, Eric Ford, Stefan Baral, Michael Mugavero, Allyson G Hall","doi":"10.1177/00333549241250223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how vaccination decisions are influenced by misinformation, disinformation, and social pressures, leading to varied and inequitable uptake rates. In this study, we examined how COVID-19 vaccine messages received via social networks were associated with vaccine uptake in rural Alabama.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From November 2021 through March 2022, we collected 700 responses to a telephone survey administered in 4 rural Alabama counties. We asked respondents to indicate whether certain social relationships (eg, family, businesses) tried to influence them to (1) obtain or (2) avoid a COVID-19 vaccine. We used χ<sup>2</sup> tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, Mantel-Haenszel χ<sup>2</sup> tests, and Fisher exact tests to examine the associations between vaccination status and survey responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respondents in majority-African American counties were significantly more likely than those in majority-White counties to have received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (89.8% vs 72.3%; <i>P</i> < .001). Respondents who received ≥1 dose had a significantly higher mean age than those who had not (58.0 vs 39.0 years; <i>P</i> < .001). Respondents who were encouraged to get vaccinated by religious leaders were more likely to have received ≥1 dose (<i>P</i> = .001), and those who were encouraged to avoid vaccination by family (<i>P</i> = .007), friends (<i>P</i> = .02), coworkers (<i>P</i> = .003), and health care providers (<i>P</i> < .001) were less likely to have received ≥1 dose. Respondents with more interpersonal relationships that encouraged them to avoid vaccination were more likely to be unvaccinated (<i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Interpersonal relationships and demographic characteristics appeared to be important in COVID-19 vaccine decision-making in rural Alabama. Further research needs to identify how to facilitate vaccine-positive interpersonal relationships, such as peer mentoring and trusted messenger interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":20793,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Reports","volume":" ","pages":"691-698"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528806/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Associations Between Social Networks and COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in 4 Rural Alabama Counties: Survey Findings.\",\"authors\":\"Greer McCollum, Ashleigh Allgood, April Agne, Dave Cleveland, Cicily Gray, Eric Ford, Stefan Baral, Michael Mugavero, Allyson G Hall\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00333549241250223\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how vaccination decisions are influenced by misinformation, disinformation, and social pressures, leading to varied and inequitable uptake rates. In this study, we examined how COVID-19 vaccine messages received via social networks were associated with vaccine uptake in rural Alabama.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From November 2021 through March 2022, we collected 700 responses to a telephone survey administered in 4 rural Alabama counties. We asked respondents to indicate whether certain social relationships (eg, family, businesses) tried to influence them to (1) obtain or (2) avoid a COVID-19 vaccine. We used χ<sup>2</sup> tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, Mantel-Haenszel χ<sup>2</sup> tests, and Fisher exact tests to examine the associations between vaccination status and survey responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respondents in majority-African American counties were significantly more likely than those in majority-White counties to have received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (89.8% vs 72.3%; <i>P</i> < .001). Respondents who received ≥1 dose had a significantly higher mean age than those who had not (58.0 vs 39.0 years; <i>P</i> < .001). Respondents who were encouraged to get vaccinated by religious leaders were more likely to have received ≥1 dose (<i>P</i> = .001), and those who were encouraged to avoid vaccination by family (<i>P</i> = .007), friends (<i>P</i> = .02), coworkers (<i>P</i> = .003), and health care providers (<i>P</i> < .001) were less likely to have received ≥1 dose. Respondents with more interpersonal relationships that encouraged them to avoid vaccination were more likely to be unvaccinated (<i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Interpersonal relationships and demographic characteristics appeared to be important in COVID-19 vaccine decision-making in rural Alabama. Further research needs to identify how to facilitate vaccine-positive interpersonal relationships, such as peer mentoring and trusted messenger interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20793,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"691-698\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528806/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549241250223\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549241250223","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目标:COVID-19 大流行表明,接种疫苗的决定如何受到错误信息、虚假信息和社会压力的影响,从而导致不同和不公平的接种率。在本研究中,我们考察了阿拉巴马州农村地区通过社交网络接收到的 COVID-19 疫苗信息与疫苗接种率之间的关系:从 2021 年 11 月到 2022 年 3 月,我们在阿拉巴马州的 4 个农村县收集了 700 份电话调查回复。我们要求受访者说明某些社会关系(如家庭、企业)是否试图影响他们(1)接种或(2)避免接种 COVID-19 疫苗。我们使用 χ2 检验、Kruskal-Wallis 检验、Mantel-Haenszel χ2 检验和费舍尔精确检验来研究疫苗接种状况与调查回答之间的关联:结果:非裔美国人占多数的县的受访者接种 COVID-19 疫苗≥1 剂的可能性明显高于白人占多数的县(89.8% vs 72.3%;P P P = .001),而家人(P = .007)、朋友(P = .02)、同事(P = .003)和医疗保健提供者(P P P 结论:人际关系和人口特征与疫苗接种情况之间的关系非常密切:在阿拉巴马州农村地区,人际关系和人口特征似乎对 COVID-19 疫苗接种决策很重要。进一步的研究需要确定如何促进疫苗接种积极的人际关系,如同伴指导和可信信使干预。
Associations Between Social Networks and COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in 4 Rural Alabama Counties: Survey Findings.
Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how vaccination decisions are influenced by misinformation, disinformation, and social pressures, leading to varied and inequitable uptake rates. In this study, we examined how COVID-19 vaccine messages received via social networks were associated with vaccine uptake in rural Alabama.
Methods: From November 2021 through March 2022, we collected 700 responses to a telephone survey administered in 4 rural Alabama counties. We asked respondents to indicate whether certain social relationships (eg, family, businesses) tried to influence them to (1) obtain or (2) avoid a COVID-19 vaccine. We used χ2 tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, Mantel-Haenszel χ2 tests, and Fisher exact tests to examine the associations between vaccination status and survey responses.
Results: Respondents in majority-African American counties were significantly more likely than those in majority-White counties to have received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (89.8% vs 72.3%; P < .001). Respondents who received ≥1 dose had a significantly higher mean age than those who had not (58.0 vs 39.0 years; P < .001). Respondents who were encouraged to get vaccinated by religious leaders were more likely to have received ≥1 dose (P = .001), and those who were encouraged to avoid vaccination by family (P = .007), friends (P = .02), coworkers (P = .003), and health care providers (P < .001) were less likely to have received ≥1 dose. Respondents with more interpersonal relationships that encouraged them to avoid vaccination were more likely to be unvaccinated (P < .001).
Conclusions: Interpersonal relationships and demographic characteristics appeared to be important in COVID-19 vaccine decision-making in rural Alabama. Further research needs to identify how to facilitate vaccine-positive interpersonal relationships, such as peer mentoring and trusted messenger interventions.
期刊介绍:
Public Health Reports is the official journal of the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General and the U.S. Public Health Service and has been published since 1878. It is published bimonthly, plus supplement issues, through an official agreement with the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health. The journal is peer-reviewed and publishes original research and commentaries in the areas of public health practice and methodology, original research, public health law, and public health schools and teaching. Issues contain regular commentaries by the U.S. Surgeon General and executives of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health.
The journal focuses upon such topics as tobacco control, teenage violence, occupational disease and injury, immunization, drug policy, lead screening, health disparities, and many other key and emerging public health issues. In addition to the six regular issues, PHR produces supplemental issues approximately 2-5 times per year which focus on specific topics that are of particular interest to our readership. The journal''s contributors are on the front line of public health and they present their work in a readable and accessible format.